Early Intervention for Children With Unilateral and Mild Bilateral Degrees of Hearing Loss

Abstract

Some children with unilateral hearing loss or mild bilateral hearing loss are at risk for developmental delays, educational difficulties, and other adverse effects. However, these children face several challenges in receiving services that can prevent such problems. Many do not meet existing eligibility requirements for early intervention services in their state. Information disseminated to professionals and parents often does not convey the significance of unilateral and mild bilateral hearing loss. Some professionals indicate that there are insufficient guidelines defining appropriate intervention services for these children. Factors that influence developmental outcomes in this population are not well understood, making it difficult to determine which children can benefit from intervention services. Additional data are needed about how to minimize or prevent adverse outcomes in these children. This article presents suggestions for intervention and future research that were developed by participants of the 2005 National Workshop on Mild and Unilateral Hearing Loss.

The Influence of Hearing Aid Use on Outcomes of Children With Mild Hearing Loss

“…As an alternative, some of the children may not have qualified for early intervention even if the HL was confirmed at a young age. Holstrum et al (2008) highlighted the challenges of providing early intervention services for children with mild HL. As of 2008, a little more than one half of the states in the United States included specific language for eligibility into Part C/birth-to-three services for children with mild HL on the basis of the philosophy that these children may be at risk for future language and academic difficulties.…”

Social skills in preschool children with unilateral and mild bilateral hearing loss

“…The service provision and support provided to children with UMHL have been characterized by uncertainty among both professionals and parents, and great variability in terms of access, scope and content of early intervention (Fitzpatrick et al, 2016;Holstrum, Gaffney, Gravel, Oyler, & Ross, 2008). Many factors are likely to contribute to this uncertainty and variability; for example, the practical issues of hearing aid use for babies could put some stress on parents, and if the hearing loss is mild they may not appreciate the importance of hearing aid use.…”

“…In addition, the services provided to children with UMHL may vary greatly in content and extent (Holstrum et al 2008) compared with, for example, children with cochlear implants, who typically enter specific programs. With the implementation of universal newborn hearing screening in many countries, the age at detection has been dramatically reduced for children with UMHL, although the time between detection and amplification may vary from 0 to 6 years (Fitzpatrick, Whittingham and Durieux-Smith 2014).…”

“…Just as they are at risk for later amplification, children with UMHL may also risk receiving less follow-up because their needs could be underestimated or less visible (Holstrum et al 2008). Although it is reasonable to assume that early amplification is accompanied by other intervention services, there are also likely to be cases in which families are enrolled in early intervention services before or after the child is fitted with hearing aids.…”

An approach to unilateral hearing loss

“…[20] Manyetik rezonans çekilmesi sırasında radyasyon sorunu yok iken sedasyon ya da anestezi gerekliliği diğer bir sorundur. [21] Geleneksel olarak normal işiten kulağın çocuğun dil gelişimi ve akademik başarısı için yeterli olduğu düşünülmektedir ve aileye okulda oturma tercihi ve sağlam kulağın korunması önerisi genellikle yeterli görülür. Ayrıca bu bebeklerin bir kısmı işitme cihazından yarar görmektedir ancak bu durum tüm çocuklar için geçerli değildir.…”